T-34 the best tank of the war?

[Brian W]

Turreted AFV are much superior to non-turreted AFV, in many ways. Certainly better than nothing, but no one except the Germans built so many turretless direct fire vehicles, and they did so out of necessity, not choice.

And having another 1,000 StuGs in the caucus mountains in 1942 would have not been possible because they couldn't transport the fuel to keep them mobile. And then there's the extra fuel to train the crews. Building tanks is great; supplying tanks with fuel, crew and ammo is the hard part. Maybe if they gave the extra StuGs to their allies?

 

[Brian W]

Why is the StuG so good in ASL? Size. It's an average tank with no turret and no MG, but it's small so very hard to hit when moving or in hard cover. As an ambush vehicle, or as a true AG, it's fine. As an exploitation vehicle it is poor--give me a stuart over a StuG on the attack.

 

[Justiciar]

Why is the StuG so good in ASL? Size. It's an average tank with no turret and no MG, but it's small so very hard to hit when moving or in hard cover. As an ambush vehicle, or as a true AG, it's fine. As an exploitation vehicle it is poor--give me a stuart over a StuG on the attack.

All very valid points. Just*** to play Devil's Advocate...and in keeping with your 'in ASL'*** theme...Smoke and sD on the attack/exploitation does bump the StuG up a notch over the Stuart (the screen of the smoke should enhance maneuver)...and since the comparison seems to be drawn to a Stuart, this seems* to indicate a StuG G to L (vs IIIB and its cousins...)...so you have MG (even maybe the remote one) could have the Snoogie (offset to CC and no CMG)....

But I get your points about speed, G, more MGs (overrun, interdiction), turret.

In ASL I don't think 17 MP vs. 13 creates a huge* 'exploit' advantage...it would if more scenarios were say 4 boards deep and exit or be GO on the deep board was part of the VC, but both tanks tend to play on 2 boards...maybe 3 (but a portion only).

 

[jrv]

The ability of the Stuart to whip around the block and suddenly come at you from a very annoying angle should not be under-appreciated. The M8 Armored Car is even more annoying in this regard, and many's the StuG that has found itself flailing around trying to fend off one of these curs that keeps getting on its flank.

JR

 

[Mr Incredible]

I had a Stuart, with a gyro and 9-2 AL in KGP.

Took out a couple of Panthers with BFF, albeit Out of Gas, but still fun to do.

 

[Flarvin]

Turreted AFV are much superior to non-turreted AFV, in many ways. Certainly better than nothing, but no one except the Germans built so many turretless direct fire vehicles, and they did so out of necessity, not choice.

I would say the soviets produced far more turretless direct fire vehicles.

 

[jrv]

I would say the soviets produced far more turretless direct fire vehicles.

Do you mean the Soviets produced more turretless direct fire vehicles than the Germans produced turretless direct fire vehicles, or the Soviets produced more turretless direct fire vehicles than they produced turreted direct fire vehicles?

JR

 

[witchbottles]

More specifically - the 'G' version (eventually with night sight)
Perhaps Kursk would have turned out a little different?

But I agree with Panther G.

Cost and reliability must go to the T34/85

The later Sherman's were reliable with a fair punch but too high, tracks too narrow.

And us poor Brits? It's kind of cheating to include the firefly...

Got to post something weird about J1

what was wrong with the Comet?

 

[bendizoid]

77L not powerful enough perhaps

 

[witchbottles]

77L not powerful enough perhaps

"... It was designed as an improvement on the earlier Cromwell tank, mounting the new 77 mm HV gun in a new lower profile and part-cast turret. This gun was effective against late war German tanks, including thePanther and, at most ranges, the Tiger..."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_(tank)

 

[Rubrik]

Come on guys - don't hate on me already! :nod:

There's nothing wrong with the comet but let's be honest with each other - you know what counter you would rather play - the comet if I remember doesn't have great armour and only average mobility.

The 75L vs 75LL?

The Panther 18 AF v an 8 or something?

It's just my p.o.v and well founded it seems

 

[Brian W]

T-44. Small target, 18 AF and faster than the Panther. The 85L doesn't penetrate like the 75LL, but it is a significant step up against infantry--even ATT shots can hurt on the 8 table instead of the 6 table. The small target designation is a major boon; it makes driving by German infantry survivable, unlike the Sherman, aka the PF magnet.

 

[Mister T]

T-44. Small target, 18 AF and faster than the Panther. The 85L doesn't penetrate like the 75LL, but it is a significant step up against infantry--even ATT shots can hurt on the 8 table instead of the 6 table. The small target designation is a major boon; it makes driving by German infantry survivable, unlike the Sherman, aka the PF magnet.

Agree, but there's a flaw: Red MP

 

[GeorgeBates]

No smoke. MGs blow, too.

 

[Brian W]

Agree, but there's a flaw: Red MP

Don't roll 12.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

The T-44 is one they didn't get quite right. It's 0 RoF seems wrong. It's turret was a slightly larger version of the T-34/85 turret and whatever about it's myriad faults, a cramped turret was not one of them. I would give the T-44 a RoF of [1]. Put a 100L in it to get a T-44/100 or T-54 m1946 and a RoF of [0] (IE no RoF) would be justified.

 

[witchbottles]

Come on guys - don't hate on me already! :nod:

There's nothing wrong with the comet but let's be honest with each other - you know what counter you would rather play - the comet if I remember doesn't have great armour and only average mobility.

The 75L vs 75LL?

The Panther 18 AF v an 8 or something?

It's just my p.o.v and well founded it seems

well if I had my choice, I'd take the Wasp, personally, on an ASL battlefield. 18 AF or even the KT 's 26 AF mean nothing to a FT TK DR in the game.

 

[Flarvin]

Do you mean the Soviets produced more turretless direct fire vehicles than the Germans produced turretless direct fire vehicles, or the Soviets produced more turretless direct fire vehicles than they produced turreted direct fire vehicles?

JR

The soviets produced more turretless tanks than the Germans. And for the most part, it was not out of necessity.

 

[Brian W]

The soviets produced more turretless tanks than the Germans. And for the most part, it was not out of necessity.

Yes it was due to necessity. They were stopgap measures due to the inability to mount the 85mm-152mm gun in the T-34/KV turrets. The redesign of the T-34 turret and the introduction of the IS (and T44-54) series removed the need for them, and they stopped making them as soon as the war ended.

The Russians were also still using the ISUs for direct fire support of attacking infantry. Only the SU-85/100 were specifically tank destroyers. By 1944, the StuGs were used as tank replacements, and had gone beyond the roll of assault guns.

 

[Flarvin]

Yes it was due to necessity. They were stopgap measures due to the inability to mount the 85mm-152mm gun in the T-34/KV turrets. The redesign of the T-34 turret and the introduction of the IS (and T44-54) series removed the need for them, and they stopped making them as soon as the war ended.

The Russians were also still using the ISUs for direct fire support of attacking infantry. Only the SU-85/100 were specifically tank destroyers. By 1944, the StuGs were used as tank replacements, and had gone beyond the roll of assault guns.

I would say not out of necessity, for a couple of reasons.

Many of the soviet turretless tanks like the ISUs, played the same role as the German's StuGs. Assault guns that are capable of being used as tank destroyers. But by the later part of the war, they were not needed in the anti-tank role very much. Where the Germans needed the StuGs to fill that role. Not necessity for the soviets, but for the Germans.

Also turretless tanks like the SU-76, that were produced well after their guns were needed in the anti-tank role. The soviets like the Germans, had a role for turretless tanks that was not the result of necessity.